Haha it’s a meme from a few years ago

My apologies. Unplugged for a few days.

If I take your meaning then yes. Your inclusion is the subject of tip #2.

Congratulations! Please do not resist.

While true — e.g., “trans man” is preferred because “transman” sounds like a strange new gender or cape-wearing crusader — I probably would only offer the tip the second time I heard the awkward phrasing, for the same reason I’d help a friend learning a new language with a word they were slightly mispronouncing. Just to help.

Since we’re offering tips, here are a few that are related…

1. For individuals, the use of the “trans” descriptor usually isn’t obligatory. By default I just use man, woman, neither, either… however they identify. No special rules. In some contexts I’ll try to remember “trans.” If it’s important to a particular trans person to include that part, for example, or if they’re still mostly cis-presenting and I might need the mental post-it note. Otherwise it’s usually simpler and more affirming to just roll with their identity as given/presented.
2. For groups, you’ve probably heard people say “trans men and women,” which leaves out our nonbinary friends. Instead I try to use “trans people” when possible, even for myself, just to be inclusive of all spectra of transition, acknowledge shared experiences, and express solidarity. The obvious exception is where binary gender identity is immediately applicable, such as FIDE’s exclusion of trans women.
3. Re: when to add “trans,” there is a related faux pas that’s very common. It’s generally weird and sometimes rude to ask if (or guess whether) someone is trans if they haven’t volunteered the information themselves. Similarly, if someone hasn’t offered any gender or pronouns, for themselves or someone else, it’s generally most polite to assume none.
4. To do that, usually you need only use gender neutral pronouns. In contemporary professional English writing these are “they” and “them.” Yes, these were once 3PP but now thet are far more useful as the pronouns of choice wherever gender is unknown or irrelevant. And they are essentially never incorrect. If someone has asked you to use more specific pronouns, you ought to as a kindness (to affirm their gender identity) but if you forget and accidentally use the neutral pronouns, you only missed an opportunity to be affirming.
5. If relevant or important, you may need to inquire about their gender. This is where people put their foot in their mouth most often. In 2026 the best way to phrase the question is to ask about their pronouns (NOT to ask “man or woman?” which instantly makes you sound old AF).
6. That said… (final tip) asking people’s pronouns without justification can come across as pushy/prying since not everyone wishes to (or is ready to) identify. Perhaps worse, it can come across as disingenuous (performative/patronizing) to those who care and a boorish cliche to everyone else. So if it’s relevant, include why you’re asking. For example, “when I describe your work to the team, what pronouns would you prefer I use for your introduction?”

🌈

Which is just fine when you love the one you’re with.

The “spooky action from a distance” of quantum phenomena like entanglement fully supports this attitude as the default. Every realized/observed/actual reality necessarily coalesces/collapses every superposition into congruency.

In short, retcon: the universe is retroactively continuitous. So the one you’re with is always who you were “predestined” to be with.

Sounds like blame should go entirely to the race-baiter’s headlines, rather than blaming normal headlines for not compensating hard enough with overt patronization.

Like for anyone who isn’t black, having black friends is common and normal but calling them your “black friends” sounds weird, even in a positive context, because it’s othering.

“Local Muslim Man Stops Runaway Bus” sounds weirdly othering too. Any headline artificially injecting an identity for no obvious reason sounds shady.

He has pretty eyes and a non boring face. I’d ask him out at the grocery store if he didn’t have a ring.

My cat has a simple bloodthirst tell. He winks at you when he’s thinking about biting or scratching too hard. He’s previsualizing the attack then flinches because he knows if he bites hard enough to draw blood a finger will appear out of nowhere and flick his little nose, which he hates. So usually he’ll start winking at you but then think better of it and calm himself. But it’s hilarious that he basically tells everyone when he’s contemplating their murder.

Oh shit, loved populous! (The demo. Played it over and over for months.) The terraforming shaman and villagers who might catch their butts on fire and run around like cartoons was great.

But it was never in him. By letting the prosecution play out, and trusting the public he promised to represent, he acted as a faithful democratic leader. Wartime leaders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln deliberately stepped aside to allow boring democratic leaders like Biden to facilitate reconciliation after conflict.

In this case, the tactical error was letting the public re-take the wheel, assuming they had learned their lesson and were now smart enough to not be fooled by the same fascist conman.

Making that decision for them might have thwarted the carnage, but more likely would have only postponed it allowing a significantly more competent and disciplined fascist administration to be granted power 4 years later.

Though it pains me, and this opinion will undoubtedly be unpopular, I disagree that it was a mistake for Biden to avoid making Trump’s prosecution a priority.

Obviously in hindsight it was a tactical error to allow American voters to re-take the wheel, but in principle the decision to not expedite a trial in order to conclude before the election expressed faith in the public to not screw up.

In technical terms he was acting as a jus post bellum democratic leader, not a responsible-government technocrat, pragmatic tactician, or revolutionary.

So it’s easy to say in hindsight “it’s a pity that he did not stab that vile creature when he had a chance!” But trust in others you claim to represent is never a mistake, even when that trust turns out to be misplaced.

Cooler heads will remember that SCOTUS carved out the exclusive right to determine what actually qualifies as “official”

TLDR assassinating Trump would have only given magats a martyr.